Guns, some facts, possible gun control

[ACPlayer]

Some gun facts:

in 1998, 30,708 American died by gun shot.

From 1987 to 1996, nearly 2,200 American children 14 years of age and younger died from unintentional shootings.

In 1996 the rate of unintentional firearms death was highest among males aged 15 to 19 (2.3 per 100,0000)—more than four and a half times the unintentional firearms death rate for all Americans (0.5 per 100,000).

a person who lives in a home with a gun is three times more likely to be murdered and five times more likely to commit suicide than a person who lives in a home without a gun. For every time that a gun is used in the home for the purposes of self-defense, 43 other people are killed with a gun in unintentional shootings, homicides or suicides.

Sources:
Kellerman, AL, and Reay, DT. "Protection of Peril?" An Analysis of Firearm-Related Deaths in the Home." New England Journal of Medicine. Vol. 314, No. 24. 1986. PP. 1557-1560.

Kellerman, AL, Arthur, MD, et al. "Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home." New England Journal of Medicine. Vol. 329, No. 15. 1993. PP. 1084-1091.

Kellerman, AL, Rivera, FP, et al. "Suicide in the Home in Relation to Gun Ownership." New England Journal of Medicine. Vol. 314, No. 24. 1986. PP. 1557-1560.

--------------------------------------------------

Impact of some of the legislations placing restrictions on gun ownership:

Impact of Brady bill (source brady web site).

According to an analysis of the FBI Uniform Crime Report, the percentage of violent crimes committed with firearms has declined dramatically after the Brady Law went into effect. What's more, gun-related violent crime is decreasing even faster than violent crime overall.

Since the Brady Law went into effect through the end of 1999, the overall proportion of aggravated assaults involving a firearm fell by 12.4%. The FBI Uniform Crime Report for 1997 shows that gun homicides have declined by 24% since 1993; robbery with firearms, by 27%; and aggravated assault with firearms, by 26%.

A study by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence analyzed the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearm's firearms trace database and showed that the Brady Act has disrupted established gun trafficking patterns by closing off access to guns in traditional source states, or states with lax gun laws. The study provided important evidence that the regulation of the retail sale of handguns is an effective means of interfering with the illegal gun market — running counter to the old adage that only law abiding citizens are affected by gun laws.

Impact of One Handgun-a-month law in VA


In the early 1990's, Virginia gained a national reputation as a "source state" for guns used in crime in Northeastern cities. Virginia's lax gun laws and proximity to Northeastern cities with tough gun laws drew many gun traffickers to the state to purchase handguns in large quantities for sale in places like New York City and Washington, D.C. In July 1993, Virginia made gun traffickers' work much more difficult by passing a law limiting handgun purchases to one per month per person.

The law has been enormously effective. An August 1995 Center to Prevent Handgun Violence study found that after the law went into effect, there was a 66% reduction in the likelihood that a gun purchased after July 1993 and traced back to the Southeast from the Northeast corridor would have originated in Virginia. Based on this information, researchers suggest that a national one-gun-a-month law could reduce gun trafficking tremendously all across the country.

Today, four states — Virginia, Maryland, South Carolina, and California — have enacted one-handgun-a-month laws as a roadblock for criminal gun trafficking.

------------------------------------------------

Future possible changes to gun laws:

1. Juveniles should not be permitted to own any guns. There are handgun restrictions, but long-guns are permitted.
2. Restrict the manufacture, sale, importation, possession of high capacity ammo clips and assault weapons. Manufacture restricted to only for military purpose and the guns be then destroyed.
3. Re-implementation of the 5-day waiting period.
4. Internet web sites should be held responsible for gun sales through them. They are taking a few for the sale and should be held just as liable as a gun dealer. The claim that they are making introductions only is not enough.
5. Implement child locks on weapons and implement a law like Connecticuts on child access to weapons making it a felony to store or leave a firearm within reach of a minor. I am not sure if a federal law would be possible or not, if not states should implement.
6. Require some level of education for a gun owner on care, safety, storage and handling of weapons. This could be part of a gun licensing program.
7. Set a date for to implement Ballistic fingerprinting programs.
8. Non-US citizens may not own any weapons (dont know if this is already law).

So, as the czar of the war on guns (seems like every thing is now a war on something), I would further explore each of these options and figure out how to implement some or all of them.

----------------------------------------------------

Regarding the so called right to own guns:

URLs arguing about the second amendment and right to own guns:
http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/amendment02/
http://www.fair.org/extra/9609/2ndamendment.html

The SC apparently has held that the second amendment says that private gun ownership is constitutionally protected as the State needs a militia to protect it from outside interference (if NY wants to attack NJ for example). The state can then call on citizens to use their private weapons to defend the State's integrity.

It would be interesting if the Supreme Court was faced with a case where a state decides that in order to protect the State the well regulated militia need only have pitchforks, as the state determines that this is enough to protect that states integrity (of course that legislature may get voted out next november!). Seems like then the citizens of that state may have their ability to own any guns severely restricted.

Note, I am not a lawyer and have not studied this subject, so the above is pure speculation. I am also not advocating it.

----------------------------

Most of this stuff comes from the Brady website and findlaw.

Fire away.

[Wake up CALL]

I'll jump in the barrel first AC. If in 1998 30,708 Americans died by gun shot that means only 714 people in the United States attempted to defend themselves from their homes. This alone seems to cast a great deal of doubt on the accuracy of some of your statistics. It translates to only about one Texan per month defending themselves with a firearm. Heck that problem happens every night in several redneck country bars in Dallas! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Wake up CALL]

I found an interesting statistic while surfing.

Violent crime rates are the highest from 1993 to 2000 in the District of Columbia wheras in gun country like Montana it is ranked 45th out of 51.

In fact the District of Columbia is number one in all forms of crime except one, that is forcible rape where Alaska makes it into first place. I suppose all you single girls out there should move from Alaska to New Jersey who is 51st in this category. Montana even ranks pretty high in forcible rape coming in at number 32 but I suppose they counted the sheep in their statistics. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

My source was The Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics 2002 edition.

Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics 2002 in pdf format (http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/1995/pdf/section3.pdf)

The above link requires you have Adobe Acrobat reader 5.0 or higher and a high speed connection else it may take forever to load.

[John Cole]

Hell, in Montana it's a two day ride to find someone to commit a violent crime against.

[slamdunkpro]

First let's skip all the "factoids" prospered by Handgun Control Inc, oops - now the National Coalition to Ban Handguns - oops now "The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence" Oh let's just do one for fun:

[ QUOTE ]
in 1998, 30,708 American died by gun shot.

[/ QUOTE ]

According to the FBI 96% of these deaths occurred during the commission of a felony. This statistic also includes; police shooting, military shooting, and suicides.

Kellerman by the way has been discredited by too many sources to list. The AMA in fact censured him for his false articles in the NEJM.

On to the meat...

[ QUOTE ]
Future possible changes to gun laws:

1. Juveniles should not be permitted to own any guns. There are handgun restrictions, but long-guns are permitted.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Gun Control act of 1968 expressly prohibits person under the age of 18 from “purchasing and possessing” any type of firearm..

In other words it’s been illegal since 1968 for Juvenals to own or possess guns.


[ QUOTE ]
2. Restrict the manufacture, sale, importation, possession of high capacity ammo clips and assault weapons. Manufacture restricted to only for military purpose and the guns be then destroyed. .

[/ QUOTE ]

In most all accepted definitions the definition of an “assault weapon” includes the phrases “fully automatic” or “selective fire” . The National Firearms act of 1932 placed HEAVY restrictions on the purchase and possession of fully automatic weapons. Since the NFA of 1932 there has NEVER been a case of a legally registered machine gun being used in a crime.

This is the same argument as “the speed limit is 55 why do you need a car that goes faster?” We now feel the need to ban things that LOOK military.

It’s that pesky innocent until PROVEN guilty thing again. Don’t you HCI types just wish that would go away


[ QUOTE ]
3. Re-implementation of the 5-day waiting period. .

[/ QUOTE ]

Most urban states and urban jurisdictions have waits that are far longer. Illinois is 14 days, Alexandria VA is 7, California is 14. How many days are enough?

[ QUOTE ]
4. Internet web sites should be held responsible for gun sales through them. They are taking a few for the sale and should be held just as liable as a gun dealer. The claim that they are making introductions only is not enough. .

[/ QUOTE ]

Gun Control Act of 68 again (Brady too). It’s illegal for private individuals to sell handguns across state lines. There is also this little provision called trading without a license.

So why stop there, let’s make Automart.com responsible if you buy a car from me then get drunk, go out and kill someone. Remember only sue the party with money!

[ QUOTE ]
5. Implement child locks on weapons and implement a law like Connecticut’s on child access to weapons making it a felony to store or leave a firearm within reach of a minor. I am not sure if a federal law would be possible or not, if not states should implement. .

[/ QUOTE ]

See #1 above. It’s already illegal for minors to possess firearms. So now you not only want to be the gun tsar, but the sock drawer tsar as well?

[ QUOTE ]
6. Require some level of education for a gun owner on care, safety, storage and handling of weapons. This could be part of a gun licensing program. .

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a classic – Allow me to paraphrase this: “ We just want to insure that you are educated and safe, SO TELL US EXACTLY WHO YOU ARE WHERE YOU ARE HOW MANY GUNS YOU HAVE SO WE KNOW WHERE TO COME AND GET THEM.”

[ QUOTE ]
7. Set a date for to implement Ballistic fingerprinting programs.

[/ QUOTE ]


Physics vs Politics here – Sorry you can’t fool Mother Nature. It takes as few as one (1) bad or dirty round to scar a barrel thus changing the “ballistic fingerprint” Or one bad guy with a chain saw file. This is feel good policy at it’s worst. It does nothing except place a burden on the law abiding..


[ QUOTE ]
8. Non-US citizens may not own any weapons (dont know if this is already law).

[/ QUOTE ]

This was a part of the GCA act of 68 that was struck down by I believe the 9th circuit Court of Appeals. All you need is a driver’s license in most states to purchase a firearm and our idiot government types want to give licenses to illegal aliens. In fact the liberal courts have gone so far as to say that even though it’s illegal for a convicted felon of buy a gun., they can’t be prosecuted for lying on the paper work because that would be self incrimination.


Here’s the bottom line – What the Brady types really want is that no one is allowed to have guns but them. (Sara Brady has a special permit so that her bodyguard can carry a machine gun – So does Ted Kennedy)

Their goal is that simple. And that should be the scariest news of all because like it or not, the Second Amendment is the teeth behind all the others.

[MMMMMM]

As I've said, there are too many people, andyfox's "unlimited" theory notwithstanding. Overcrowding breeds disease, filth, aggression and violent crime.

[Ray Zee]

violent and gun crime is going down mostly because of the aging of the boom population in the poor section of the cities from the 70's.
whenever guns are easy to get criminals will have guns. and whenever guns are hard to get only criminals will have guns.

[John Cole]

M,

Sort of like poverty, too. Huh?

[brad]

'From 1987 to 1996, nearly 2,200 American children 14 years of age and younger died from unintentional shootings.
'

ok thats 220 a year.

how many kids <14 die of organized sports injuries (eg, football).

do u think football serves a better purpose than guns?

[brad]

ok riddle me this.

australia and great britian have totally banned guns and their crime rate (including violent crime rate) has totally skyrocketed.

like 10 fold.

you have farmers being jailed for defending themsleves in their own home (after theyve been burglared numerous times).

why?

[brad]

last quick point.

hurricane (whatrever) florida 1989 or whatever when cities were shut down for like 2 weeks.

looting was prevalent.

people with guns spray painted on their house 'we have guns - trespassers will be shot' - and they were left alone.

what do you say to people in such a situation, too bad, if youre small or weak or old youre gonna have to be victimized ?

you realize the police have no responsibility to protect you dont you?

[brad]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lott/lott-arch.html

some recent articles by john lott

[brad]

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Lott_v_Teret/Lott_v_HCI.htm

lott responds to hci 's attack.

cool html page cause hc quotes in color, lotts in black.

plus links.

doesnt really make sense alone but if you want to research maybe a start.

[ACPlayer]

1. As i understand it minors cant own hand guns but can own long guns.
2. I dont see any real need for assault weapons in the hands on normal people.
3. The 5-day period expired and was replaced by instant check. Some states have laws, congress should pass the 5-day waiting period.
4. I surfed the web and found places that act as intermediaries to buy guns from. There are many non FFL sellers listed that can be contacted to buy weapons from.
5. CT's law is a good one. Variations of that law exits in about a third of the states.
6. You dont want gun owners to know how to handle their weapons?

Basically, your argument is that anyone should be able to buy a gun on a moments notice without knowledge about the use and care of lethal weapon so that they leave a lethal weapon where a 10 year can find it and use it. Change your handle to Slamdunkdumbass!

[MMMMMM]

I think overcrowding might be more of a culprit--not sure. Also I never disputed that poverty breeds those things.

Personally speaking, I'd much rather be poor than overcrowded. It was very peaceful when I lived for a year in Maine without a car, in an uninsulated cabin, and walked/hitched 3 miles each way to buy groceries, 10 miles each way to do laundry, 10 miles each way in the winter when I got a job as mason-tender for $4.35/hr. building the new High School in Eastport. It was fun chopping all the firewood for winter as the wood stove was the only source of heat. It was hard earning money up there and I was definitely very poor that year. Once I had nothing to eat for 3 days but dried lima beans. I was 18 that year. But I'd take that lifestyle in a flash over living in a noisy apartment complex with drug-abusers for neighbors who blast rap music, even if I was making good money. Also there was very little crime to speak of up there. If someone got a ticket for drunk driving that was news.

[MMMMMM]

By the way, guns were very plentiful up there (and I had a shotgun and a 30-06)--but I didn't hear or read of anyone getting shot or robbed at gunpoint. Just about everyone I talked to who worked at the fish factory had a gun, it seemed (I worked there over the summer). I sometimes hiked the woods, and since there were bear nearby, I sometimes toted the 30-06 (for defensive purposes only in case of violent, aggressive bears;-)).

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
1. As i understand it minors cant own hand guns but can own long guns.

[/ QUOTE ]

Incorrect, as I posted earler - Read the GCA of 68 - Don't let facts get in the way of your argument /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]
2. I dont see any real need for assault weapons in the hands on normal people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who are you to decide what I do or don't need - This is the crux of the Gun Controller's argument - I don't like "a" therfore you can't have one, but it's OK if I want one. Wanna ban machine guns? fine start with Sara Brady's and Ted Kennedy's see how they howl.

[ QUOTE ]
3. The 5-day period expired and was replaced by instant check. Some states have laws, congress should pass the 5-day waiting period.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again why? Most waits are longer than 5 days and they had little effect.

[ QUOTE ]
4. I surfed the web and found places that act as intermediaries to buy guns from. There are many non FFL sellers listed that can be contacted to buy weapons from.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again as a stated in my first post - It's illegal to be in the business without an FFL, and it's illegal to sell handguns person to person across state lines.

Why aren't the current laws on the books being enforced? If they can't enforce the current laws what makes you think they can enforce new ones?

[ QUOTE ]
5. CT's law is a good one. Variations of that law exits in about a third of the states.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please explain exactly how the "Father to Felon" law is good.

[ QUOTE ]
6. You dont want gun owners to know how to handle their weapons?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think your exact post was"6. Require some level of education for a gun owner on care, safety, storage and handling of weapons. This could be part of a gun licensing program. "

The second part of your quote is what you really want ('come on - admit it!)

I was in the firearms business for a number of years. Contrary to what most Bradyetts think people don't just wander into a gun shop with a wad of cash and a bottle of Red Eye point and go "that's a good en! wrap it up". 99% of people who purchae firearms are either already educated in safe handleing or take the time to get educated from the dealer. Making some sort of "offical trainig program" mandatory is just adding excess burden, and does nothing to reduce crime.

The only arena that I support mandatory training in is conceled carry permits. Anyone who wants a carry permit should be schooled in the legal use of deadly force and understand the whens and whys. This course should be taught by a criminal defense lawyer, because if you act in your own self defense you're going to need one.

[ QUOTE ]
Basically, your argument is that anyone should be able to buy a gun on a moments notice without knowledge about the use and care of lethal weapon so that they leave a lethal weapon where a 10 year can find it and use it. Change your handle to Slamdunkdumbass!

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again you are trying to force your sterotype on me and personally attack me. Why? Why can't you respond to the facts presented? Is your argument that weak?

[andyfox]

Did people without guns spraypaint their houses too?

[andyfox]

I'm in favor of banning both football and guns. Both are toys for idiots.

[brad]

yes, in economic terms they enjoyed a 'free ride'

[andyfox]

"I got a job as mason-tender for $4.35/hr."

I thought that was Sklansky's job. And his pay rate.

[Tuco]

[ QUOTE ]
Gun Control Act of 68 again (Brady too). It’s illegal for private individuals to sell handguns across state lines. There is also this little provision called trading without a license.

So why stop there, let’s make Automart.com responsible if you buy a car from me then get drunk, go out and kill someone. Remember only sue the party with money!


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm always impressed by the logical arguements of the gun lobby, untill I get to this non-sensical part of thier argument. I'm amazed that intelligent individuals, like the poster here, keep spouting this crap. All you gun-types would do much better dropping this rhetoric, as it really does damage to the rest of your argument.

Tuco.

[Tuco]

[ QUOTE ]
whenever guns are easy to get criminals will have guns. and whenever guns are hard to get only criminals will have guns.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is simply not true. I live in a county where guns are extrememly difficult to get. I've seen the seedy side of the street, and I have never once come across a criminal-type with a gun. In fact, I've never seen a gun period. I've never had a friend or family memember mugged or even come into contact with a criminal with a gun. Maybe I'm super lucky non-gun guy, but I doubt it.

Then I start travelling down to California to play in the juicy poker games in the LA area. I become friends with a guy and he comes to pick me up for a round of golf. He pops the trunk and I go to put my clubs in and there, in plain sight, is a handgun.

We then have the following conversation:

ME:"What the hell is this for?"
MY FRIEND:"You mean the gun? Oh man, relax. Everyone down here carries one"
M:"Seriously? Do yuo know alot of people with guns in thier cars?
MF:"Hell ya. Got to protect yourself."

I guess that the irony of having a gun in your trunk to protect yourself from a car-jacker is lost on my buddy. I tell him that you could stop 1000 cars in my city (of almost 2 million people) and it would be entirely possible that you wouldn't find one gun. He is in shock.

Then the conversation goes like this:

M:"What would you do if someone tries to carjack you?" (ignoring the ironic placement of his weapon)

MF:"Pull out my gun on him, obviously."

M:"Simple as that? This car is worth dying over?"

MF:"Of course not. But I certainly WILL die if I DONT pull my gun on him"

I point out that this, of course, is false. The one thing he will have if he pulls his gun is a chance for quick revenge, in exchange for his life on occasion.

Tuco.

[HDPM]

Where I live people keep them in the jockey box, console, or under the seat. They are much more readily available that way. I don't get the gun in the trunk thing as far as practicality. But the problem is the draconian California laws against carrying guns, so the law abiding don't keep them close enough at hand. It becomes a paperweight.

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
All you gun-types would do much better dropping this rhetoric, as it really does damage to the rest of your argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which part is rhetoric? the two facts stated in the first part , or the let's sue the deep pockets after an event. The first was a statement of fact and the second HAS ACTUALLY HAPPENED - Remenber the Station fire in Rhode Island? Who were the first 3 defendands named in the first lawsuit? Budwieser, Shell Oil, and Clear Channel. Why? becuase there was a Bud promotion that night at the club; The owners of the club owned a shell gas station and gave out tickets there, and clear channel because the club advertized the concert on one of their stations. No one else involved really had any money.

Sue the deep pockets - It's the American Way!!



/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

[brad]

straw man

also confusing 'only crims have guns' with 'all crimss have guns'

[Tuco]

[ QUOTE ]
Which part is rhetoric?

[/ QUOTE ]

Comparing a company that makes vehicles that make our lives easier to a company that makes guns that are designed to kill people is rhetoric. Spare me the arguement that cars kill more people than guns, please. If we all took a gun to work everyday, real estate would be considerably cheaper.

The American facination with arming themselves facinates me. I'm not American, so I really don't have any idea where it comes from. I don't say this with disdain at all as i'm sure you all have your reasons, but it strikes me that it should bother you all more than it does.

Tuco.

[Ray Zee]

tuco, i dont know where you live but i bet my boots part of any freedoms that you have come from the fact that americans are willing to use guns and lay down their lives for others in the world to live in peace. there is a good chance without american gun nuts you might be living as a slave now. look at history.

[MMMMMM]

Very good, andy./images/graemlins/grin.gif

Also, note to John: Washington County in Maine in 1979-80 was, I believe, either the poorest county in the USA or else very very close. It probably still is;-), but I haven't looked it up lately. It is also possible that my subjective impression of the low violent crime rate there was just that: subjective. But I read the papers regularly and, while I wasn't particularly focused on observing crime rates at that time, I don't recall reading much of anything about serious local crimes, and especially not violent crimes. Nor do I recall guys at work talking about shootings or anything else like that (except perhaps crimes which might have occurred on the Passamaquoddy Indian reservation--the rate of alcoholism on the reservation was quite high, I believe). So if my recollections and impressions are correct, there in Washington County were: 1) loads of readily available guns (easy to buy over the counter at the hardware store, or from locals on the side), and 2) a very impoverished area. So, in my experience at least, poverty and ease of buying guns do not appear to go hand-in-hand with gun violence. I tend to think it is overcrowding, poverty, and perhaps bad culture that breed such crimes.

Washington County was somewhat sparsely populated, and except for the Passamaquoddies, pretty much racially and culturally homogeneous.

I don't know just what all this signifies, but I find it very hard to believe that overcrowding does not play a bigger part in crime rates than probably anything else.

[MMMMMM]

"The one thing he will have if he pulls his gun is a chance for quick revenge, in exchange for his life on occasion."

Very bad reasoning here. You are ignoring the times he will save his life by pulling a gun. Carjackers aren't exactly known for being merciful to their victims. Most importantly, isn't it better to have the option to pull a gun if the situation warrants it? You don't really think that not having the option to resist criminal force is a good thing, even if you think not resisting force would usually be the wisest course, do you?

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
Comparing a company that makes vehicles that make our lives easier to a company that makes guns that are designed to kill people is rhetoric.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, no you missed the point. The point I was making was that trial lawyers want to hold innocent parties responsible for the actions of individuals over which they have no control simply because they have deeper pockets.

[ QUOTE ]
Spare me the arguement that cars kill more people than guns, please. If we all took a gun to work everyday, real estate would be considerably cheaper.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now who's spouting rhetoric?

[MMMMMM]

"The American facination with arming themselves facinates me."

The European fascination with being helpless against potential aggression fascinates me, too.

[ACPlayer]

perhaps bad culture that breed such crimes.

Is "bad culture" a code phrase?

[MMMMMM]

No, it means exactly what it says. Bad cultural habits and bad personal upbringing both contribute to violence.

[ACPlayer]

I dont know. There seems to be an awful lot of subtext about "culture" when referring to Arabs, Muslims, middle easterners, and now crime in America.

Probably signifies nothing. Odd.

[MMMMMM]

It doesn't mean nothing. I'll elaborate:

Too many Americans are brought up on a heavy diet of violence on TV and in the movies. Too many Americans are crass violent ignorant slobs. Too many Middle Easterners think the godly thing to do is fight the infidels. Too many American blacks are brought up in broken homes and surrounded by drugs, alcohol abuse and violent culture (American whites too, but it is proportionately a greater problem amongst blacks). Too many Muslims don't speak out against their brothers in religion who are fanatically violent. Too many Americans are drunk shallow rude aggressive pricks. Too many politically correct idiots are afraid of hearing or speaking the truth.

Lots of culture needs lots of fixing. Being afraid to talk about it won't fix anything.

[John Cole]

M,

I've spent some time in Maine over the years visiting relatives--my mother's family comes from Elsworth. My relatives there have an abiding distrust of the Federal government, profess their Christian faith, work at whatever they like--if at all, and lead very different sorts of lives than do most of us. My mother's cousin had a nice collection of firearms, mostly antique muskets, which were scattered about the house, and I mean scattered--in closets, behind the couch, under beds. One of my mother's cousins has only paid taxes while serving in the military for a few years. Now, he works only when he needs to buy parts for Model A's and T's that he drags out of the woods to rebuild. They live nearly self-sufficent lives, but despite outward appearences are worth a fortune. They just live like they're poor. One time when I was visiting, they had just finished building a 37 ft. lobster boat, which they sold for almost nothing to someone who strolled by and saw it. It was something to do. Around the property, they had twenty to thirty sheds and barns that held such stuff as one lung engines, completely restored--with working magnetos--a hundred year old shingle machine, driven by a one-lunger, a couple Model T pick ups, and various other stuff in varying states or repair or disrepair. Every so often they'd donate something they had rebuilt to a local museum. Paul, my mother's cousin, who was in his eighties when I last saw him, made cough syrup from roots he had found in an Indian burial mound. "Just as good as what you'd buy in a store," he said when I asked about its effectiveness. Jean Shepard once said that when you drive through Maine you get the feeling that Mainers never throw anything away--heck they never even trade it in.

But, not everyone can sustain this sort of life, and poverty has affected many of those who live in this fairly prosperous area--it's close by to Acadia National Park and Bar Harbor. Teenage drug and alcohol abuse are major problems, and the teen pregnacy rates are very high. The future looks bleak for many young people. But Maine does not really seem to have a "gun culture" even though many people own and use guns. I guess by that I mean Maine lacks the "six-gun mentality." Perhaps this explains your observations.

John

PS. Another of my mother's relatives told me that one of the things he remembered most from his childhood was seeing my grandfather pull up in a huge Peirce-Arrow (he was a chauffeur), whip a shotgun from the backseat, and fire off a blast out the window.

[HDPM]

But since when has there been a problem caused by a tyrannical government in Europe? Oh. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[MMMMMM]

Interesting stuff there, John;-)

Washington County, including Eastport, Perry, Calais, and Lubec really were/are impoverished, though, not just in appearances, but according to government statistics. I think it actually was classified as the poorest county in the nation (or perhaps in second place for that honor). I also think it was about one-third of the population of Washington County that received food stamps (if memory serves--that's roughly the figure I recall reading).

Yes, I'd agree that Maine doesn't really have a "six-gun mentality." So...it get back to culture now?;-)

[Zeno]

Part of your wonderful post reminds me of parts of Oregon where the timber and fishing industry have been on the rocks for many years and some counties are populated by self-reliant people that somehow get by. I'll spare the details; you covered many of them.

By the way, I like your Grandfather - He knew how to make a point. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

-Zeno

[Tuco]

[ QUOTE ]
The European fascination with being helpless against potential aggression fascinates me, too.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this is a childish response to my statement, I am quite surprised. I get alot from this particular forum, and M is an excellent contributor. I read (almost) every post here, and respect his opinions. I have no idea why he would respond like this. My statement that the American gun lobby intrigues me was made without malice. I'm really quite interested to understand the motivation, because my life experience has been different.

Two things:

1. I'm not European.
2. Save the snide remarks for those that deserve them.

Tuco.

[Wake up CALL]

Tuco I believe he was quite serious, I happen to agree with M.

[MMMMMM]

Thank you for the compliments, Tuco, and I didn't intend to be making a snide remark. I was trying to be a bit funny or flip (perhaps unsuccessfully) but I was also being rather serious. Europe has quite a history of appeasement and weakness and look what it got them.

I am getting the impression that you may believe that arming is perhaps a bit of an unnatural act, or maybe a somewhat unenlightened one. Well I would agree that if everyone thought as you do, there wouldn't be much need for arming. However the sad reality is that there have always been many who are eager to take brutal advantage of those who are not prepared to defend themselves. This has occurred countless times both on the personal level and on the international level. Thus my own belief is that armament is necessary. Maybe when we evolve into a higher sort of being, it won't be necessary; but at the level we humans have always been, and probably will be for the foreseeable future, I don't see any way around it. The unarmed or disarmed seem to get crushed sooner or later throughout history. Even the wonderful Buddhist pacifist monks were slaughtered by the Chinese communists in Tibet--most did not survive.

So I think the American fascination with arming comes primarily from a spirit that desires freedom and knows that without the means to defend one's self or one's country, freedom is only a temporary aberration, to be taken away sooner or later by a more powerful exploitive foe at some undetermined date. Likewise I think many Eurupeans still haven't learned the lessons of the 20th century regarding how foolish it can be to be caught unarmed or insufficiently armed, or how pointless it is to try to appease an implacable foe. It is my personal belief that appeasement virtually never works, and often even encourages the aggressive party to further exploits.